My position was near-Eurosceptic, I'm not opposed to the European Union but I'm discouraged by a few of the actions it's taken (keen membership expansion seemingly just to get countries within it's sphere, Greece, the entire Catalonia tragedy). However I felt we were better in to reform and even if that wasn't the case, we didn't have a strong enough government (or politicians in general for that matter) and the geopolitical situation was not in our favour enough to negotiate an ideal Brexit. Now I'm more convicted that is the case.
This is my biggest fear to be honest, within 10 years we could be in the position of being in an awful economic position and ultimately being England & Wales. The alternative is we're in a worse position now but just out the EU.
I really, really can't see any advantage to this.

There were similar figures from the BBC not that long ago showing a pretty significant rise in prevented far-right terrorist attacks as well.
Edit: I’ve found an Independent article on it, 4 within a year
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terror-attacks-uk-threat-far-right-national-action-isis-nazis-westminster-finsbury-park-a8229876.html

A Centralised, Worldwide Church will inevitably lead to this. With so much money and influence its easier to sweep these issues under the rug than confront these issues and the condemnation it brings.
There's plenty of independent churches nowadays that offer the exact same worship without the child abuse and backwards politics the Catholic Church offers. It'll never collapse whilst it can take from Latin America but hopefully it's relevance will fade in the Western world.
Knowing you Oz you've said this for two possible reasons:
1) You genuinely believe a whole religion made up of hundreds if not thousands of denominations is equivocal to the one authority that happens to be known as the most corrupt and hypocritical of it's kind.
2) A 'gotcha!' for those in the Grooming Gang threads, trying to suggest those correlating the grooming gang phenomena with a cultural background is the same of claiming a whole religion needs to be shut down.
Either way, its not a good look mate.

The guys has sold this stuff for the last two year on here. Those on here who posted having bought it (on the original thread and the couple on here) only had positives feedback from what I remember. Clearly he's legitimate and people are happy with his product, he even ran you through the costing (even though he was at no need to do so) and there's clearly an audience for it. He's not forcing anyone to buy it.

Incompetency suggests innocence, of simply not being equipped to succeeded or up to the task. What we've seen following Rotherham isn't incompetence, it's an intentional attempt to cover up and erase an entire catalogue of some of the most degenerate and damaging crimes you can inflict on a person. After all we went through with Rotherham, there's absolutely no excuse for the fact so many other cases have remained buried, and now this in Rotherham itself. This action will only lead to further ethnic strife and division in communities, they'll be massive shame when we look back in 20 years at what we allowed.

I almost drew the example myself but its an extremely dangerous area to get in to.
Honest question, how do you recommend this is achieved Mac?
I've seen this said before but I don't see how, in the same vein of reducing murderers, its a particularly achievable goal.

There's fact here but also rather misleading figures.
70% of homicide victims are men, but they likely make up a similar if not higher number of the perpetrators. Same regarding victims of violent crime, and both together answer why they on average men serve more time than women. Beyond that, the issue with these rather simplistic infographics is that they fail to recognise context in regards to these figures.
However I have seen proper studies into homelessness, suicide rates and sentence ruling and these are all genuine concerns that are often overshadowed or underplayed within activism. In fact i saw one study suggest domestic abuse could be nearer 50/50 and in some cases, under certain variables show men suffer higher rates than women. I imagine the downplaying of this is a result of the toxic masculinity narrative.
Toxic Masculinity always confused me. Aggression was a necessary value in the progress of early human civilisation up to fairly recently, and even now it has been severely toned down and replaced with much more innocuous social competitiveness. Outright violence is by and large condemned by the majority of the male population, any threads regarding hooliganism on this board are genuinely derided by almost all who comment and those who speak positively of it are often mocked. If 'toxic masculinity' was as ingrained as we are to believe, you'd think that on a football board, in an extremely tribalistic subculture by general societal standards, that this kind of action would surely be seen as a lot more savoury as it is currently? This feeds into what Carl says regarding domestic violence and rapists.
Domestic violence is a naturally difficult, cases seem to either be fairly clean cut and straight forward case or a complete mess where it can be hard to truly discern who the victim is. One true life example I witnessed was a woman turning up, pissed, to her former partner's house unannounced, slapping him and vocally abusing him until the police was called for a domestic disturbance. The guy is fairly stoic and hadn't been particularly bruised or marked from the attack and when the police came and saw a bloke standing calm next to a woman crying in hysterics they arrested him and he spent the night at the station.
Although he obviously got off and ultimately refused to press charges it shows how confusing one-on-one crimes and issues can be, who truly 'started' it and how much damage was done malevolently, in self defence, etc. It's a legislative nightmare when ultimately its their word against the other's, especially its its out public eye.